U.S. Solicitor General to defend lying in political campaigns

Remember when Obama campaigned on hope? *sigh* He's destroying all hope for US democracy. The U.S. Solicitor General answers to Obama, and he's set to defend lying during political campaigns on first amendment grounds.

President Obama, through his U.S. Solicitor General, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, has now stated that lying in political campaigns isn't merely protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, but that it is an especially protected form of speech, which must not be hindered by any state government, such as by the state of Ohio. Ohio has outlawed such intentional deception of voters, and has established heavy criminal penalties against it, when it can be proven. The idea behind this law is that any democracy in which lying in political campaigns isn't penalized by severe penalties, won't remain a democracy much longer, but will instead descend into a kleptocracy: theft of elections themselves (via lies), so that they become just nominal "elections," which are controlled by whatever aristocrats can put up the most money, to lie the most effectively, to the biggest number of voters: lying-contests.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli Jr., in this case, SBA List v. Dreihaus, wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court, defending political liars’ rights: ..."Petitioners [the liars] have sufficiently alleged that a credible threat of prosecution will chill them from engaging in [deceptive] speech relating to elections for public office, the very type of speech to which the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application.’ Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)). As petitioners explain (Br. 40), under Ohio law, candidates who are the subject of such [lying] speech can try to silence it by complaining to the [Electoral] Commission and thereby tying up the speaker [the liar] in administrative litigation during the short window of time in which the electoral speech [that person’s lie] would be most effective [at deceiving voters].4" [emphasis mine]

Let's be honest, anyone who has read 'Change We Can Believe In', and couldn't see through the fog of unrealistic pandering, probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote. Although, I will admit that his opposition has made it their sole intention to fight everything that he does propose, regardless of whether they had a history of supporting it as well or not. Politics sucks all the way around.

I based my votes on Obama having the potential to be significantly better than a President McCain or Romney, especially regarding Supreme Court nominations.

That said, if lying in political campaigns turns out to be allowable, with the Supreme Court's blessing, then our democracy is reduced to a game of not even "who can buy the best spin doctors", but who can lie most appealingly, buy the most ads and "authorities", and drown out the fact-checkers!

I voted for Obama for the exact same reason - the clear lessor of two evils. The Democratic Party and the GOP are steadily becoming two sides of the same coin, and I would entertain a third party the next time around. Bald faced lies are not exclusive to either side.